Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« What is the smallest caliber you'd trust for self-defense? | Main | SAF win against NC emergency regulations »

Ruling on Portland OR limit on open carry

Posted by David Hardy · 28 March 2012 11:51 AM

Eugene Volokh discusses it at the Volokh Conspiracy.

The ordinance makes it illegal (with some exceptions) to knowingly possess a firearm in public, "recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm..." The question is, what does "recklessly" mean here? In the Oregon Court of Appeals, the majority hold that it means reckless of any public risk created, above and beyond those inherent in self-defense, etc.. Which comes close to saying that it only bans loaded carry if the carrier was bent upon crime, or practicing quick draw while drunk. The dissent concludes that "recklessly" modifies "having failed to remove," so that it means simply that the carrier can be convicted if he fails to unload either by intention or by recklessness.

· State legislation

Leave a comment